I am appalled at how desperate the GOP are right now concerning the fate of their pitiful party. Are there no able suitors who will stand up?...I know there are people within the party who are upset about how disorganized they are. Just a few years back, they controlled the House, the Senate, and had the Presidency.

What happened to all the pipe dreams they were selling? What happened to the thriving economy they touted?

Just a few short years later, we find out how much they deceived us. When will the American people wake up, and see how we get bamboozled during election cycles?...If this (Palin) is the best you have to offer, than I feel sympathy for you.

Who was the Democratic leader from 1994-2006? Oh, no one. Why does the GOP need a leader? It just seems like a partisan attack by the left to make the GOP look weak by saying we don't have a definitive leader.

At 11/30/2009 1:54:24 PM, Nags wrote:Who was the Democratic leader from 1994-2006? Oh, no one. Why does the GOP need a leader? It just seems like a partisan attack by the left to make the GOP look weak by saying we don't have a definitive leader.

Are Americans more concerned with apperances than substance?...What you are telling me is that Palin's lack of knowledge makes her a viable?. This is so sad, that people are more concerned about how something is dressed up, rather than what's in te packaging.

At 11/30/2009 2:01:26 PM, kelly224 wrote:Are Americans more concerned with apperances than substance?...What you are telling me is that Palin's lack of knowledge makes her a viable?. This is so sad, that people are more concerned about how something is dressed up, rather than what's in te packaging.

Lol, what? How did you possibly manage to conclude that from what I just said?

At 11/30/2009 1:54:24 PM, Nags wrote:Who was the Democratic leader from 1994-2006? Oh, no one. Why does the GOP need a leader? It just seems like a partisan attack by the left to make the GOP look weak by saying we don't have a definitive leader.

1994-2000 was Bill Clinton. Not an official leader, but an ideological one. 2000-2006 was a multitude of semi-ideological leaders, but no one spectacular.

The problem without having a "leader," per se, is what the Democrats faced in 2000-2006 - no direction and no action, which means there isn't anything to offer to voters, even the ones who oppose the government. An opposition lacking a leader is doomed to stay an opposition, aye.

That is the issue with the current GOP. They have no one to look to reverse their fortunes. They can't rely on anti-Obama sentiment, so much as the Dems could rely on anti-Bush sentiment. In order for the GOP to appear as a new government-in-waiting, they need to have someone that captures the imagination of voters. They have no one, so far.

At 11/30/2009 1:54:24 PM, Nags wrote:Who was the Democratic leader from 1994-2006? Oh, no one. Why does the GOP need a leader? It just seems like a partisan attack by the left to make the GOP look weak by saying we don't have a definitive leader.

Are Americans more concerned with apperances than substance?...What you are telling me is that Palin's lack of knowledge makes her a viable?. This is so sad, that people are more concerned about how something is dressed up, rather than what's in te packaging.

OBAMA GIRL!!!Look at much of the uneducated urban areas in many parts of New York, California, etc. Think they went off Obama's appearance and other things along that matter or his actual political policies? Exactly. Two sides to every story.

No one will vote for Palin, I identify partially with the republican party, (although I personally would abolish the party system) and I can definetly say that if Palin is the candidate for the GOP, Obama will get my vote. I was in favor of McCain, and would have been more-so if he would have been intelligent and picked Lieberman for his vice. Palin is an idiot. Enuff said.

Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

At 11/30/2009 2:15:31 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:OBAMA GIRL!!!Look at much of the uneducated urban areas in many parts of New York, California, etc. Think they went off Obama's appearance and other things along that matter or his actual political policies? Exactly. Two sides to every story.

Mixture of both. Such areas would have favoured any Democratic candidate with policy such as Obama's.

But, appearance is a characteristic of North American politics. Policy is really an underdog, though not as unimportant as many claim. Your style, your energy, how you talk - all of this is important in politics these days. It gives you the air of a good leader who can manage yourself and your reputation, so surely you can manage your country?

Cynically, the focus on appearance is one of two things; either it is a sign of the waning of the American empire, such as Rome did before it, or that people are so wrapped up in celebrity fashion and movie stars that they expect the same from a president, even if they're dolts.

At 11/30/2009 2:12:12 PM, Volkov wrote:1994-2000 was Bill Clinton. Not an official leader, but an ideological one.

I wouldn't call Clinton a leader at all. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress in '97 and the Dems didn't have much sway on policy. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were pretty much Co-Dictators. Newt Gingrich was an incredible GOP leader.

2000-2006 was a multitude of semi-ideological leaders, but no one spectacular.

No one. Legit. No one. Any sad excuse for a GOP leader today is better than anything the Dems had from 00-06.

The problem without having a "leader," per se, is what the Democrats faced in 2000-2006 - no direction and no action, which means there isn't anything to offer to voters, even the ones who oppose the government. An opposition lacking a leader is doomed to stay an opposition, aye.

The Dems still don't have a leader. Obama has an approval rating below 50%, which is unprecedented for a first year President. Nancy Pelosi has an approval rating only slightly better than Dick Cheney's. The Dems still don't have a leader. I don't think a leader is really necesarry.

That is the issue with the current GOP. They have no one to look to reverse their fortunes. They can't rely on anti-Obama sentiment, so much as the Dems could rely on anti-Bush sentiment. In order for the GOP to appear as a new government-in-waiting, they need to have someone that captures the imagination of voters. They have no one, so far.

Pshh, what, lol? The only reason the Dems won the past few elections was because of anti-bush campaigns. Their ad tactics were pretty much - "We're not Bush or Cheney, vote for us."

The Dems do have the Democratic Leadership Council though, which I think is an extremely good organization unlike anything the GOP has. The GOP doesn't have anything like it - which is something I think the GOP does need - not necesarrily a definitive leader.

At 11/30/2009 2:26:46 PM, Nags wrote:Pshh, what, lol? The only reason the Dems won the past few elections was because of anti-bush campaigns. Their ad tactics were pretty much - "We're not Bush or Cheney, vote for us."

The Dems do have the Democratic Leadership Council though, which I think is an extremely good organization unlike anything the GOP has. The GOP doesn't have anything like it - which is something I think the GOP does need - not necesarrily a definitive leader.

2nded

Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

At 11/30/2009 2:26:46 PM, Nags wrote:I wouldn't call Clinton a leader at all. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress in '97 and the Dems didn't have much sway on policy. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were pretty much Co-Dictators. Newt Gingrich was an incredible GOP leader.

Clinton was still an "ideological leader" which focused Democrats on power.

No one. Legit. No one. Any sad excuse for a GOP leader today is better than anything the Dems had from 00-06.

Aye.

The Dems still don't have a leader. Obama has an approval rating below 50%, which is unprecedented for a first year President. Nancy Pelosi has an approval rating only slightly better than Dick Cheney's. The Dems still don't have a leader.

I've seen many polls where Obama is still around 50%, and above it. You cannot always focus on one poll - and I highly doubt this is "unprecedented," as I've seen lower and much more unstable results for Presidents from many polls. Hell, you realize a President won an election handily with 37% approval once.

I don't think a leader is really necesarry.

Then you're ignorant of politik.

Pshh, what, lol? The only reason the Dems won the past few elections was because of anti-bush campaigns. Their ad tactics were pretty much - "We're not Bush or Cheney, vote for us."

I said you cannot rely on it forever. I never said it wasn't also effective in giving you wins. But, unpopularity of leaders and parties will only get you so far. Don't make me relate a story.

The Dems do have the Democratic Leadership Council though, which I think is an extremely good organization unlike anything the GOP has. The GOP doesn't have anything like it - which is something I think the GOP does need - not necesarrily a definitive leader.

You do know such a thing is communist in origin, right?

Besides, I never said that the GOP needs a leader who calls every single shot - that would be foolish. But the GOP needs someone to rally behind - not a "council." Do you see Democrats cheering on their Council, British Tories chanting the names of their party's president's council, or Liberals here shouting about the wonders of the Executive Committee?

Leaders are important, like it or not. They rally support, energize volunteers, and especially in North American politics, are the faces of their parties. This is how the system has evolved, and how it will be for the time being. Choosing to do otherwise will be a mistake.

Volkov, it seems that we argue over leadership of political parties for about five pages in every election-related thread. I'll make it short this time. Basically, you can't force a leader. Leaders arrise naturally. What you are suggesting is to create an artificial leader. It just doesn't work this way. Ronald Reagan was an incredible leader of the GOP during the 80s. Gingrich was equally impressive during the Clinton admin. There isn't much else to do though. Pointing fingers and critisizing oppositional parties for not having a leader is pointless, as it is no one's fault. You can't say the GOP is in trouble because they don't have a leader much like the Dems don't have a leader even today. You can't force a leader into leadership, it must be natural.

At 11/30/2009 2:46:46 PM, Nags wrote:Volkov, it seems that we argue over leadership of political parties for about five pages in every election-related thread. I'll make it short this time. Basically, you can't force a leader. Leaders arrise naturally. What you are suggesting is to create an artificial leader. It just doesn't work this way. Ronald Reagan was an incredible leader of the GOP during the 80s. Gingrich was equally impressive during the Clinton admin. There isn't much else to do though. Pointing fingers and critisizing oppositional parties for not having a leader is pointless, as it is no one's fault. You can't say the GOP is in trouble because they don't have a leader much like the Dems don't have a leader even today. You can't force a leader into leadership, it must be natural.

No, no, I agree with this (minus the Dems not having a leader part). Forcing a leader to the forefront is stupid. I know this personally.

Leaders, more importantly good leaders, come naturally. They have the right ambition, the right talents, and the right, well, suave. Creating an artificial leader gets you a Gordon Brown, or a Stockwell Day, or for something familiar to you, a John Kerry. All are undoubtably smart men with impressive pedigrees and good ideas, but they're just not leaders.

At 11/30/2009 2:01:26 PM, kelly224 wrote:Are Americans more concerned with apperances than substance?...What you are telling me is that Palin's lack of knowledge makes her a viable?. This is so sad, that people are more concerned about how something is dressed up, rather than what's in te packaging.

Lol, what? How did you possibly manage to conclude that from what I just said?

At 11/30/2009 2:26:46 PM, Nags wrote:Pshh, what, lol? The only reason the Dems won the past few elections was because of anti-bush campaigns. Their ad tactics were pretty much - "We're not Bush or Cheney, vote for us."

The Dems do have the Democratic Leadership Council though, which I think is an extremely good organization unlike anything the GOP has. The GOP doesn't have anything like it - which is something I think the GOP does need - not necesarrily a definitive leader.

2nded

3rd that.

And really having a demi leader has hurt the demi's.Howard Dean has been known to hurt the party at times, from 2005-2009.

At 11/30/2009 2:46:46 PM, Nags wrote:Volkov, it seems that we argue over leadership of political parties for about five pages in every election-related thread. I'll make it short this time. Basically, you can't force a leader. Leaders arrise naturally. What you are suggesting is to create an artificial leader. It just doesn't work this way. Ronald Reagan was an incredible leader of the GOP during the 80s. Gingrich was equally impressive during the Clinton admin. There isn't much else to do though. Pointing fingers and critisizing oppositional parties for not having a leader is pointless, as it is no one's fault. You can't say the GOP is in trouble because they don't have a leader much like the Dems don't have a leader even today. You can't force a leader into leadership, it must be natural.

I agree, also would add that people take lead with out even knowing it.They lead by example and people tend to heed their words.

That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

At 11/30/2009 3:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

Ann Coulter? The Wicked Witch of the East? She hasn't connected with anyone in a long, long time. She apparently really is a complete b*tch too - I've had friends meet her personally.

By the way; minus Ron Paul, all of the names you mentioned are neo-conservative. Don't you dislike such people? Or are you going to flip flop?

At 11/30/2009 2:36:21 PM, Volkov wrote:I've seen many polls where Obama is still around 50%, and above it. You cannot always focus on one poll - and I highly doubt this is "unprecedented," as I've seen lower and much more unstable results for Presidents from many polls. Hell, you realize a President won an election handily with 37% approval once.

At 11/30/2009 3:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

Ann Coulter? The Wicked Witch of the East? She hasn't connected with anyone in a long, long time. She apparently really is a complete b*tch too - I've had friends meet her personally.

By the way; minus Ron Paul, all of the names you mentioned are neo-conservative. Don't you dislike such people? Or are you going to flip flop?

No, i don't like them, but I was just pointing out that at one point these people "lead" that party.(with there words and examples, with out being declared a leader.)

I think Ron Paul is leading in a new, more conservative direction.Not that fake liberal neo-conservative.(jk, i know you don't like the L word to be misused)

At 11/30/2009 3:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

LAWLZ

That whole statement brings be lulz. *Runs for the hills before he is brutally attacked and murdered by Ron Paul supporters*

Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

At 11/30/2009 3:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

LAWLZ

That whole statement brings be lulz. *Runs for the hills before he is brutally attacked and murdered by Ron Paul supporters*

At 11/30/2009 3:17:16 PM, Volkov wrote:Ann Coulter? The Wicked Witch of the East? She hasn't connected with anyone in a long, long time. She apparently really is a complete b*tch too - I've had friends meet her personally.

At 11/30/2009 3:24:55 PM, comoncents wrote:I think Ron Paul is leading in a new, more conservative direction.Not that fake liberal neo-conservative.(jk, i know you don't like the L word to be misused)

Indeed. I don't think Vi likes it either. xD

I doubt Paul would ever gain enough stature within the GOP, though. Granted, I don't know enough about the man or his policies to make any good notes, but that would actually be a downside - I follow most rising stars and I've to see Paul be one of them.

At 11/30/2009 3:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:That being said, Palin is doing a good job of connecting with america.But so has Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, And Ron Paul at some time or another.

LAWLZ

That whole statement brings be lulz. *Runs for the hills before he is brutally attacked and murdered by Ron Paul supporters*

I know, i laughed when i wrote it, but it is true.

At some point in time these people shaped america to believe as they did.

At 11/30/2009 3:24:55 PM, comoncents wrote:I think Ron Paul is leading in a new, more conservative direction.Not that fake liberal neo-conservative.(jk, i know you don't like the L word to be misused)

Indeed. I don't think Vi likes it either. xD

I doubt Paul would ever gain enough stature within the GOP, though. Granted, I don't know enough about the man or his policies to make any good notes, but that would actually be a downside - I follow most rising stars and I've to see Paul be one of them.

Yeah, but he does not need to get far into the GOP to lead.He is leading the american people to believe in liberty, freedom, and limited government.In theory, if the people follow his message, more GOP head men will rise in birth of that same message.If that is what the people want, i think it can happen sooner or later.